Lardlad
El Dandy
Live reaction to @WWE #WWENetwork
Posts: 8,248 
|
Post by Lardlad on Apr 21, 2009 11:29:10 GMT -5
I remember reading a while back that Bret mentions how he rates himself and other wrestlers based on a system he uses, but I can't remember what that system is.
It was like "mic skills" out of 10, "in ring skills" out of 10, and something else.
Help?!
|
|
dsriggs
Samurai Cop
PHOTOBUCKET!!!!!!!!
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by dsriggs on Apr 21, 2009 11:42:27 GMT -5
IMO the Bret Hart Rating System should be
* = Suplex
** = Russian Legsweep
*** = Backbreaker
**** = Second-rope Elbow
***** = Sharpshooter.
|
|
crnau87
Trap-Jaw
Attitude Eras Finest Tag Team Star.
Posts: 380
|
Post by crnau87 on Apr 21, 2009 12:21:06 GMT -5
back body drop, Headlock, Turn buckle beat downs and criss crossing agonizing back drops  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2009 12:22:59 GMT -5
I have no clue, but I've heard excellent things about this Bob Backlund Rating System.
|
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Apr 21, 2009 12:25:49 GMT -5
IMO the Bret Hart Rating System should be * = Suplex ** = Russian Legsweep *** = Backbreaker **** = Second-rope Elbow ***** = Sharpshooter. ****** = Small Package ******* = Victory Roll ******** = Piledriver ********* = Ring Post Figure Four Leglock Pretty sure I could go on... |
|
dsriggs
Samurai Cop
PHOTOBUCKET!!!!!!!!
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by dsriggs on Apr 21, 2009 12:37:33 GMT -5
IMO the Bret Hart Rating System should be * = Suplex ** = Russian Legsweep *** = Backbreaker **** = Second-rope Elbow ***** = Sharpshooter. ****** = Small Package ******* = Victory Roll ******** = Piledriver ********* = Ring Post Figure Four Leglock Pretty sure I could go on... ********** = That damn stomp to the Lower Abdomen that he teases the Sharpshooter with |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Tull-eus S. Venture on Apr 21, 2009 13:01:49 GMT -5
I remember reading a while back that Bret mentions how he rates himself and other wrestlers based on a system he uses, but I can't remember what that system is. It was like "mic skills" out of 10, "in ring skills" out of 10, and something else. Help?! I think it was one part in-ring work (selling, bumping), one part technical ability, and one part promo/mic work. Each had a max rating of 10 points. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Apr 21, 2009 13:10:09 GMT -5
Let me guess by Harts rating system he is above Hogan, Flair, and SCSA. If he wanted to rate it fairly the technical category would be gone, and mic work would be about two thirds with look, and ring work splitting the other third.
|
|
|
|
Post by C2THAJ is a pretty princess on Apr 21, 2009 13:12:28 GMT -5
Let me guess by Harts rating system he is above Hogan, Flair, and SCSA. and you. |
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Apr 21, 2009 13:14:24 GMT -5
Let me guess by Harts rating system he is above Hogan, Flair, and SCSA. and you. Meh, I'da twisted his leg off. |
|
|
|
Post by Marksus on Apr 21, 2009 13:33:00 GMT -5
The first one is physical presence
Hogan= ten.
Second is the ability to talk
Hogan=10
Third is the ability to work
Hogan=2
Dynamite=10
High twenties =great wrestler.
|
|
|
|
Post by markdown474 on Apr 21, 2009 13:51:54 GMT -5
Let me guess by Harts rating system he is above Hogan, Flair, and SCSA. If he wanted to rate it fairly the technical category would be gone, and mic work would be about two thirds with look, and ring work splitting the other third. If you haven't already, you should read Bret's book. Not saying you'll like it or it will change your opinion of him, but then at least you won't have to guess. He doesn't have specific ratings for a long list of wrestlers where he ranks who's better than who. The system is just as Markus said and it just gives loose guidelines as to what makes a good pro wrestler. Not to mention I've never seen Bret do anything but praise SCSA (and vice versa). |
|
Naniwa
Trap-Jaw
a creature void of form
Posts: 411
|
Post by Naniwa on Apr 21, 2009 13:53:20 GMT -5
****** = Small Package ******* = Victory Roll ******** = Piledriver ********* = Ring Post Figure Four Leglock Pretty sure I could go on... ********** = That damn stomp to the Lower Abdomen that he teases the Sharpshooter with ***********=post match adultery |
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Apr 21, 2009 14:16:01 GMT -5
Let me guess by Harts rating system he is above Hogan, Flair, and SCSA. If he wanted to rate it fairly the technical category would be gone, and mic work would be about two thirds with look, and ring work splitting the other third. If you haven't already, you should read Bret's book. Not saying you'll like it or it will change your opinion of him, but then at least you won't have to guess. He doesn't have specific ratings for a long list of wrestlers where he ranks who's better than who. The system is just as Markus said and it just gives loose guidelines as to what makes a good pro wrestler. Not to mention I've never seen Bret do anything but praise SCSA (and vice versa). I like Bret, and always have, but I think that any mathematical formula for rating how good wrestlers are is stupid. Take the guy who rated Hogan a 2 and Dynamite a 10 in the ring. What the hell is that based off of? |
|
|
|
Post by JerryvonKramer on Apr 21, 2009 15:06:56 GMT -5
Does Bret admit that he's RUBBISH on the mic?
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 21, 2009 15:29:52 GMT -5
Does Bret admit that he's RUBBISH on the mic? Considering the crowd heat he got with his promos once he settled into his role, I'd say that's a pretty offbase statement. |
|
G2
Don Corleone
Advertising space to let
Posts: 1,366
|
Post by G2 on Apr 21, 2009 16:00:49 GMT -5
Does Bret admit that he's RUBBISH on the mic? Considering the crowd heat he got with his promos once he settled into his role, I'd say that's a pretty offbase statement. It's a pretty ignorant statement actually. While he wasn't a Rock or Hogan on the mic, he still got a reaction and did very well. |
|
|
|
Post by markdown474 on Apr 21, 2009 16:00:58 GMT -5
If you haven't already, you should read Bret's book. Not saying you'll like it or it will change your opinion of him, but then at least you won't have to guess. He doesn't have specific ratings for a long list of wrestlers where he ranks who's better than who. The system is just as Markus said and it just gives loose guidelines as to what makes a good pro wrestler. Not to mention I've never seen Bret do anything but praise SCSA (and vice versa). I like Bret, and always have, but I think that any mathematical formula for rating how good wrestlers are is stupid. Take the guy who rated Hogan a 2 and Dynamite a 10 in the ring. What the hell is that based off of? Okay I don't think this was being passed off as science, but here is the passage from the book. It was in relation to Dino Bravo: It's not as though Dino Bravo was that bad, but he sure wasn't great. I have my own theory on the three qualities it takes to be a great pro wrestler. The first one is look or physical appearance. On a scale of one to ten, Hogan being such an awesome specimen, might rate a ten, for example. Although it always helped, it wasn't as important to be tough as it was to look tough, especially if you were a heel. The second quality is the ability to talk, to sell yourself; Hogan might score another easy ten, whereas a guy like Dynamite would have to work to earn a two. The third is wrestling talent, the ability to work. Here it would be just the opposite: Hogan would rate the two and Dynamite would get the ten. A score in the high twenties adds up to a great wrestler.
To me, Dino Bravo had low numbers. He looked sluggish, had no personality and was a so-so worker at best.So that's all it was that Bret said about this rating system in his book and it was just a throwaway paragraph regarding Dino Bravo. To me it seems pretty logical but what the hell do I know. : |
|
|
|
Post by Marksus on Apr 22, 2009 15:45:35 GMT -5
If you haven't already, you should read Bret's book. Not saying you'll like it or it will change your opinion of him, but then at least you won't have to guess. He doesn't have specific ratings for a long list of wrestlers where he ranks who's better than who. The system is just as Markus said and it just gives loose guidelines as to what makes a good pro wrestler. Not to mention I've never seen Bret do anything but praise SCSA (and vice versa). I like Bret, and always have, but I think that any mathematical formula for rating how good wrestlers are is stupid. Take the guy who rated Hogan a 2 and Dynamite a 10 in the ring. What the hell is that based off of? I was quoting the book, its not my opinion. In his day Dynamite would have been a 10, Hogan displayed work of a 2 but as many people know he can work better but doesnt need to. |
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Apr 22, 2009 15:55:16 GMT -5
If you haven't already, you should read Bret's book. Not saying you'll like it or it will change your opinion of him, but then at least you won't have to guess. He doesn't have specific ratings for a long list of wrestlers where he ranks who's better than who. The system is just as Markus said and it just gives loose guidelines as to what makes a good pro wrestler. Not to mention I've never seen Bret do anything but praise SCSA (and vice versa). I like Bret, and always have, but I think that any mathematical formula for rating how good wrestlers are is stupid. Take the guy who rated Hogan a 2 and Dynamite a 10 in the ring. What the hell is that based off of? Ya, it's just kind of a system Bret used to form a well rounded opinion. And honestly, it's a pretty reasonable system to form one's opinion. And to the guy who asked, I'm pretty sure Bret gave himself a 5 or a 6 for his mic work. He's always pretty open about the fact that he was never the greatest on the mic. |
|
